Tookie ...
I know someone who knows some Bloods, but that doesn't colour my opinion here.
Should Tookie die? He was sentenced to death for the commission of plural capital crimes. Evidence presented to a court convinced a jury that he had done terrible things, things that put him beyond the pale of society.
In the state where he committed those offences, the death penalty was the sternest available.
No exculpatory evidence has since been advanced. He did those things. He can't undo them with what he does later, for whatever reason and with whatever beneficial effect. I doubt you'd find any criminal, not even a Bundy, of whom nobody could say anything good either before or after his crime.
If the law does not carry out the sentence it passed on Tookie based on the evidence presented, that lessens the importance of his crime. It lessens the authority of the law. All those people who feel they have good and sound and convincing reasons for breaking laws, from "this is true justice" to "that's just a stupid law", have another argument to back them. Look at Tookie. He reformed, he's not a threat now. Let's just wipe the blood off the slate and start over.
Sorry. I don't think so. If he has reformed, then he knows he did wrong, and he's known since he did it what the punishment was. He knew when he pulled the trigger. And, whatever his remorse has made him do since, the Crips are still out there, still committing more crimes and blighting more lives, and all of those are his responsibility too. More blood on the slate.
-----
Should there *be* a death penalty? Much more difficult question. I'll take the fifth for now, I've babbled enough 😉